“Leggo my lawsuit”: when breakfast bites back

If you thought trademark law was all cereal boxes and cease-and-desist letters, think again—because this summer, things got extra crispy. In a culinary faceoff that sounds like a punchline but could potentially novella like a 12(b)(6) waiting to happen, Kellogg has filed suit against an Ohio food truck named “L’eggo My Eggroll,” alleging that this mobile kitchen has taken more than just culinary inspiration from its famous EGGO® waffles. Somewhere between a pun and a plate of fusion snacks, a serious Lanham Act battle is ready to toast the battle (they don’t call Kellogg’s hometown Battle Creek for nothing).

So grab your syrup and your statutory citations—this one’s got infringement, dilution, and trade dress all wrapped up like a hot eggroll on a cold morning.

In June 2025, Kellogg North America Co., LLC, initiated a federal lawsuit against an Ohio food truck named L’eggo My Eggroll, alleging infringement of its well-established EGGO® trademarks and trade dress. The dispute highlights key issues in trademark and trade dress law, especially concerning famous marks, consumer confusion, fair use, and aggressive enforcement.

The Defendant & the alleged infringement

Operating in Findlay, Ohio, the food truck adopted the pun “L’eggo My Eggroll,” echoing Kellogg’s iconic slogan, “L’EGGO MY EGGO,” in both structure and phonetics. Beyond the name, the truck’s branding features a yellow–red color palette and cursive typography strikingly similar to the EGGO waffle.

According to Kellogg’s complaint, the similarities surpass mere wordplay, creating a tangible risk of confusion, suggesting sponsorship, affiliation, or origin from Kellogg without authorization.

Kellogg’s legal arsenal: five claims under the Lanham Act

Kellogg’s complaint presents a concise yet robust legal structure:

1. Federal trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
2. Trade dress infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
3. Unfair competition / false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
4. Trademark dilution by blurring (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1)) 5. Trademark dilution by tarnishment (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)).

As one can see, Kellogg leverages both statutory protections and common-law principles—a textbook enforcement model for safeguarding a famous brand.

Parody vs. infringement: is “L’eggo My Eggroll“ protected?

A central defense in pun-related cases is First Amendment parody. The US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (“Bad Spaniels”) underscores that mimicry alone is insufficient: the crucial question is whether the use conveys the brand as its own source or comments on the brand itself.

Here, Kellogg argues the food truck’s name doesn’t critique EGGO but exploits its publicity to drive business, classifying it as a non-protective use.

Enforcement & pre-suit negotiation

It also appears that prior to filing suit, Kellogg issued multiple cease-and-desist letters and oral requests, even offering to offset rebranding costs. L’eggo My Eggroll declined, countering with a demand for a buyout and, reportedly, owing medical expense claims stemming from receiving the cease-and-desist.

Such uncooperative responses typically erode equitable defenses and may reinforce findings of willful infringement, exposing the Defendant to enhanced damages and attorney’s fees.

Remedies sought by Kellogg

Kellogg’s requested relief is comprehensive:

• Preliminary and permanent injunctions
• Destruction of all infringing materials
• Monetary relief.

For a single food truck, this combination of injunctive and statutory relief could really leave the truck as “toast.”

Strategic implications for counsel & clients

This case serves as a cautionary tale for both trademark owners and small businesses:

1. Trademark providers must enforce rights consistently, even against small actors. Failure to do so risks brand dilution and opens the door to future infringers.
2. Small business operators should avoid creating brand identities that echo established marks, even when playful. Comprehensive clearance searches and legal reviews prior to brand adoption are essential risk-management tools.
3. Early settlement is often pragmatic. This case illustrates the hazards of an adversarial posture, which frequently escalates cost exposure and threatens statutory penalties.
4. The use of parody as a defense is precarious. Without clear commentary or critique, use that mimics a famous mark for its commercial impact typically fails legal muster, particularly when combined with confusing trade dress.

What’s next?

An initial question is whether Kellogg will secure a preliminary injunction.

Beyond that, settlement likely remains the best outcome for the food truck. Litigation risks—including statutory damages, enhanced fees, and lost goodwill—far exceed the cost of rebranding and negotiation.

Conclusion

The Kellogg v. L’eggo My Eggroll action showcases trademark law at its doctrinal core: famous marks, trade dress, dilution, confusion, and enforcement strategy. IP practitioners representing either side should study the complaint, pending motions, and potential settlement parameters.

← Back to News